Bargains Are for Cheaters
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But publishers don't reduce the price of the next game if their previous game made them *MASSIVE* piles of money.Catalyst6 said:
Do you think Activision is going to reduce the price of the next CoD title just because they've made shitloads of money from MW2? Nope, they're going to release it at the same price, if not more, and ***** about piracy.
... Isn't that post a little outside what most people expect from this place? "lol it no cost monies 2 maek games!!" ?ionveau said:
I mean, really? I thought people here knew enough about the industry to not say anything like that. Publishers invest millions into game development, pricing is based around seeing a return for all involved.
You know that acitivision raised their cut on modern warfare 2 (mw2 will always be mechwarrior 2, dirty heathen) in hopes of getting more than 15 or 20 percent from 11 million units sold, right? I realize once we start speaking in the hundreds of millions, most companies are just expected to deal with only a 10% payout for doing nothing but providing the initial investment (else they will be forever known as greedy and evil), but why should most of the proceeds of a successful game go to the retailers?RvLeshrac said:
I think a big part of this problem is that Penny Arcade and other groups involved in this round of the debate on the publishers sides are former fan-friendly groups that have sold out. "PAX" has made it clear that Penny Arcade isn't really "our" voice anymore despite the fact that some people see them that way (and they can still be pretty funny).
The part of the equasion that is being missed here is that we're talking about an industry that is making billions of dollars in profits! Oh sure, there are game companies that do go out of business, but that happens in every area, no matter how successful. This whole thing is motivated by greed, not any real need to see this extra money in order to have it invested in producing more games. It's simply producers deciding that instead of simply making a hundred million dollars in profit, they could have TWO hundred million dollars in profit if somehow those pesky used game sales would wind up coming into their coffers at full price. The bean counters who came up with that school of thought are also detached from reality because they are working from the assumption that people have that much money, and would find the profit worthwhile for the full price (as you pointed out), but simply are not doing it because of the alternative.
Also understand that Penny Arcade is currently lying through it's teeth. It's presenting the used game sales as hurting developers, who wind up not being rewarded for their hard work. That right there is a lie, because it's not universally true, games are funded in differant ways, and typically a developer is being paid a wage or salary to make the game. What typically happens is that a producer wants to make money, so he hands the money to a developer to produce a game so HE can make a profit. The money to make the game is their salarys and such, after all the primary cost is human resources. When you hear "this game had a budget of X" that is the money the developers received to make it, that was their pay in most cases. If a game cost like forty million dollars, that means that the producer needs to make more than that to see a profit... the developer is now out of the equasion, it's all about the producer.
Now, there are alternative arrangements where you say have a company acting as it's own producer, or game developers with an idea borrowing money and then relying on making a profit to pay off the loan with anything in excess of that loan being their profit, and so on. But that is not always the case, and it's being presented that way to guilt us consumers.
The problem I have with the whole situation is that while games do fail and take companies with them, is that there are billions of dollars in profit being made overall with the used game market flourishing (as I said before). What kind of sympathy could they possibly expect me to have?
As far as the price scale goes, I will say that I think the problem there is that the industry thinks that by allowing the media to depreciate in cost as fast as movies do will encourage more people to wait for the deals. Keeping the prices high discourages people to play the waiting game, and that's also part of why they don't like used games.
See, their logic is easy to understand, it's just very negative since your dealing with greed of the absolute worst kind, coming from an industry that managed to avoid those kinds of attitudes for a very long time. The game industry always wanted to make a profit, but now making a profit, even a good one is not enough, it comes down to them wanting every possible blood soaked dime they can squeeze out of the consumers.
The part of the equasion that is being missed here is that we're talking about an industry that is making billions of dollars in profits! Oh sure, there are game companies that do go out of business, but that happens in every area, no matter how successful. This whole thing is motivated by greed, not any real need to see this extra money in order to have it invested in producing more games. It's simply producers deciding that instead of simply making a hundred million dollars in profit, they could have TWO hundred million dollars in profit if somehow those pesky used game sales would wind up coming into their coffers at full price. The bean counters who came up with that school of thought are also detached from reality because they are working from the assumption that people have that much money, and would find the profit worthwhile for the full price (as you pointed out), but simply are not doing it because of the alternative.
Also understand that Penny Arcade is currently lying through it's teeth. It's presenting the used game sales as hurting developers, who wind up not being rewarded for their hard work. That right there is a lie, because it's not universally true, games are funded in differant ways, and typically a developer is being paid a wage or salary to make the game. What typically happens is that a producer wants to make money, so he hands the money to a developer to produce a game so HE can make a profit. The money to make the game is their salarys and such, after all the primary cost is human resources. When you hear "this game had a budget of X" that is the money the developers received to make it, that was their pay in most cases. If a game cost like forty million dollars, that means that the producer needs to make more than that to see a profit... the developer is now out of the equasion, it's all about the producer.
Now, there are alternative arrangements where you say have a company acting as it's own producer, or game developers with an idea borrowing money and then relying on making a profit to pay off the loan with anything in excess of that loan being their profit, and so on. But that is not always the case, and it's being presented that way to guilt us consumers.
The problem I have with the whole situation is that while games do fail and take companies with them, is that there are billions of dollars in profit being made overall with the used game market flourishing (as I said before). What kind of sympathy could they possibly expect me to have?
As far as the price scale goes, I will say that I think the problem there is that the industry thinks that by allowing the media to depreciate in cost as fast as movies do will encourage more people to wait for the deals. Keeping the prices high discourages people to play the waiting game, and that's also part of why they don't like used games.
See, their logic is easy to understand, it's just very negative since your dealing with greed of the absolute worst kind, coming from an industry that managed to avoid those kinds of attitudes for a very long time. The game industry always wanted to make a profit, but now making a profit, even a good one is not enough, it comes down to them wanting every possible blood soaked dime they can squeeze out of the consumers.
Sorry, red haze after this point...Therumancer said:
Why are retailers your voice?
... read the rest of your post... still red haze.
Where do you think the money comes from to pay developer salaries? The moon? No, right now, in most cases, it comes from publishers. If publishers see a larger return, developers see a larger return, meaning both can do more with the next game.
FINALLY, someone who speaks some sense. The retailer has already paid the publisher for X amount of games. Those games are now the sole property of the retailer to do as they please, either to sell them new, used, or just give them out for free as coffee mug coasters.
The publisher no longer becomes a factor in the equation once the exchange is made, and any publisher who complains about used game sales would do well to look into self-retailing their own games via physical or digital copies (ala EA, Valve, StarDock, etc).
I worked for Future Shop (Best Buy) for a couple of months and in the information for each product, you can see the price we sell it and the cost. I can tell you they make between 5 and 10$ profit on each game.RvLeshrac said:
If every game is resold an average of 2 times, that means the publisher only sees a return for a third of the total sales.lockeslylcrit said:
How is that right?
Also, "cutting out the middleman" is expensive. Most publishers keep their money tied up in projects, most houses are kinda depending upon catching a new project. So... which development house would you like to see end so EA can open it's own digital distribution service?
New games are not the same as Used.lomylithruldor said:
A New game is purchased for a set price, from the publisher/distributor, and then sold at a set price.
A Used game is purchased for a variable price, usually between $1-$10, and then sold at a variable price, usually 300%-1000% of the buy-back price.
They aren't my voice is that of a consumer as is that of most gamers with a bit of common sense.Cynical skeptic said:
All of the complaints being made by the industry are basically all about the producers (the guys investing the money) who are already making billions in profits, wanting to make even more money.
I fail to see why you should be seeing red over my criticism of Penny Arcade, read what they are saying. They are acting like the used game market is actually hurting developers, and that people buying used games are doing the equivilent of stealing food from their mouths. Kind of outrageous especially when the developers typically don't share in any of the profits from the sales of a game, that's the producer. The Penny Arcade innuendo of "well if you actually met any developers you'd have a differant opinion" (or something like that) is pretty ridiculous.
I stand by my insinuation, because the guys from Penny Arcade should know better if anyone does given how long they have been involved. The thing is though that Penny Arcade is one of the web's big gaming success stories, it's worth a lot of money now. They aren't making that money through site donations, selling T-shirts, and the like. Going by things like PAX they seem to be making their money nowadays from the industry itself by acting as a major vehicle for them. It only makes sense the side they take is going to be where their fortune is coming from. To jump on the gaming industry for being greedy on things like this, would be akin to biting the hand that feeds them.
Hey, sorry if your a fan, but I can only call it like I see it. As a consumer I want the best possible deal, oftentimes that means used games, especially with the current economy. It would be one thing if the used game market was actually hurting the gaming industry, but it's not since they are reporting billions of dollars in profits. I would be bloody surprised if Penny Arcade is somehow oblivious to that.
Plus I'll also say that I am somewhat irritated with the industry as a whole because it operates much like a criminal organization, at least by US standards. While unrelated to the topic at hand (at least directly), consider that in the US gas companies are under constant investigation for not competing with each other the way they are supposed to, and also for setting prices. This kind of cartel behavior is illegal in the US. The game industry behaves the same way, but so far the goverment has not had it's eye caught. Think about it, all new games irregardless of their development costs, cost the same thing. We have standard prices. When a big title like "Modern Warfare 2" comes out, other companies re-arrange their release schedule to avoid direct competition. You do not for example see say "Bioshock 2" having it's price lowered by $20 to try and tempt sales away from "Modern Warfare 2". The US *IS* capitolist but part of the ideal is also enforced competition, to make companies strive to produce the best possible goods at the lowest possible prices. You don't see that in the gaming industry. This is one of the reasons why I have so little sympathy for it in most debates. Heck, unlike Hollywood has in the past, it won't even fight against censorship and to have games labeled properly, very few companies will push the limits of an "R" rating and if challenged tend to back right down (though this gets even more off topic).
The bottom line is that consumers are all that matters to me, I could care less for the industry or retailers at the moment. Both are pretty much out to try and bleed me, so why should I have any sympathy for them when they decide to cry about something?
Actually, I'll disagree with Shamus. Games are substantially identical to a lot of used products that are susceptible to wear and tear. A car is "used" the instant you drive it off the lot, and until it's old enough to have components breaking, it pretty much does the same thing for you that you wanted in the first place, so it hasn't lost any of its value to you. However, during that time, it'll have dropped in value to anyone else by half or more.
So games do actually fit the model of consumable product.
However, game makers are trying to sell EVERYONE a new game every few months, whereas new car makers only try to keep ahead of demand. So of course their market is glutted, and there's a crapload of perfectly good few-month-old games out there. What's the difference in quality or playability between a game that's 1 day old and a game that's 6 months old? Not a lot!
Long story short, it's their mindless greed that's creating the situation they're in, and it's not going to go away because we buy new games instead of slightly less new ones. It will go away when the game company executives meet with the game company investors and say "Look, the rise in games fueled a great rush. We had a good time and made lots of money. But we didn't take product life cycle into account because we cared more about making all the money we could RIGHT NOW than creating a sustainable business, and so we've stuffed the market chock-friggin-full of games that look and play great.
So we're going to have to slow down for awhile, let those games get old to people, so we can then bring out new games that are perceivably more attractive to play than the old ones, and then people will buy them again. We'll see you in like, a year or so? Yeah, a year sounds about right. Thanks for understanding!"
Which isn't going to happen of course. Instead, they're going to try to wag the dog by spending money on DRM hooks that turn into "games as a service" controls. In other words, they'll start selling you that brand new game with only like half of the content they have, then sell you the rest, then the rest. And then put in an item shop. Into every single game.
You watch. It'll happen
So games do actually fit the model of consumable product.
However, game makers are trying to sell EVERYONE a new game every few months, whereas new car makers only try to keep ahead of demand. So of course their market is glutted, and there's a crapload of perfectly good few-month-old games out there. What's the difference in quality or playability between a game that's 1 day old and a game that's 6 months old? Not a lot!
Long story short, it's their mindless greed that's creating the situation they're in, and it's not going to go away because we buy new games instead of slightly less new ones. It will go away when the game company executives meet with the game company investors and say "Look, the rise in games fueled a great rush. We had a good time and made lots of money. But we didn't take product life cycle into account because we cared more about making all the money we could RIGHT NOW than creating a sustainable business, and so we've stuffed the market chock-friggin-full of games that look and play great.
So we're going to have to slow down for awhile, let those games get old to people, so we can then bring out new games that are perceivably more attractive to play than the old ones, and then people will buy them again. We'll see you in like, a year or so? Yeah, a year sounds about right. Thanks for understanding!"
Which isn't going to happen of course. Instead, they're going to try to wag the dog by spending money on DRM hooks that turn into "games as a service" controls. In other words, they'll start selling you that brand new game with only like half of the content they have, then sell you the rest, then the rest. And then put in an item shop. Into every single game.
You watch. It'll happen
Well, A: I don't give a shit about penny arcade. The issue here is "retailers vs video game industry." They're using their position to pull a bit of punditry on something they feel strongly about. Go them. If not for the rest of the internet sucking their cocks, I likely would never see a comic or post made by them.Therumancer said:
As far as everything in that last half of your post... bollacks.
All entertainment industries operate as such. Entertainment is a zero-sum game. You don't want to have to compete with a product set to sell 15 million copies even if your product is also set to sell the same amount. Most gamers only buy one or two games a month. Which means both titles split their sales. Lose-lose. So, wait a month and have a higher chance of selling to people who didn't give a shit about the last month's big title and the people who are already done with it. It happens in film, theater, music... everywhere.
Now, I'm not saying theres a clear-cut good guy in this situation. This is three generally shitty groups of people fucking each other over in every way possible while the consumer can do nothing but wait for games to occasionally fall out of the Looney Tunes style "fight" cloud. Three groups defined only by their contribution to the video game industry. Developers having the most, publishers having the middle, retailers having almost none.
"Shelf Life" for any other product is a near-linear process.
Start high, slowly decline; the irony here is that prior to 2005, GAMES USED TO DO THIS (in my market this was especially true).
I could purchase Warcraft 3 in 2002 for 50 bucks. In 2003, it was 40. In 2005 it was 20, and I just bought a BRAND NEW COPY last year for 12.
I can name the same process for unused (new) copies of older titles up until that point. What happened?
Well, for starters, the number publishers declined rapidly in number as the Big Boys in each region (Squaresoft for Japan, EA and Vivendi in the US, Ubisoft in Europe) ate up their weakened competition.
Now, Publishers indisputably control the industry; they commission the games, they OWN the developers, they own the names, copyrights you name it. Sometimes, they even dictate production against a developer's will (due to contract obligations).
In fact, there is only one part of the industry the publisher does not completely control or own; Distribution.
Gamestop has, over the course of the last decade, systematically eliminated its competition through strong business practices, luck, and possibly some underhanded tactics (why yes, I have watched over half a dozen local game retailers mysteriously turn into Gamestops in the last 10 years).
They can stand toe to toe with any other major video game retailer...but more importantly, the big Publishers.
This is an age-old problem that has already been dealt with in every other industry; every manufacturer of every conceivable product ideally would want to cut out the middle-man.
Start high, slowly decline; the irony here is that prior to 2005, GAMES USED TO DO THIS (in my market this was especially true).
I could purchase Warcraft 3 in 2002 for 50 bucks. In 2003, it was 40. In 2005 it was 20, and I just bought a BRAND NEW COPY last year for 12.
I can name the same process for unused (new) copies of older titles up until that point. What happened?
Well, for starters, the number publishers declined rapidly in number as the Big Boys in each region (Squaresoft for Japan, EA and Vivendi in the US, Ubisoft in Europe) ate up their weakened competition.
Now, Publishers indisputably control the industry; they commission the games, they OWN the developers, they own the names, copyrights you name it. Sometimes, they even dictate production against a developer's will (due to contract obligations).
In fact, there is only one part of the industry the publisher does not completely control or own; Distribution.
Gamestop has, over the course of the last decade, systematically eliminated its competition through strong business practices, luck, and possibly some underhanded tactics (why yes, I have watched over half a dozen local game retailers mysteriously turn into Gamestops in the last 10 years).
They can stand toe to toe with any other major video game retailer...but more importantly, the big Publishers.
This is an age-old problem that has already been dealt with in every other industry; every manufacturer of every conceivable product ideally would want to cut out the middle-man.
Cynical skeptic said:
I think your missing the bit about "illegal behavior" here. Again, I point to the gas/oil companies and rising prices and so on. Oh sure, other industries do it too, no denying that, but that does not make it right. We are talking about video games here, so I of course bring cartel behavior up since it's a legitimate point.
See, the thing is that I feel an industry that is behaving illegally and making billions of dollars has no reason to whine about anything, and act like the used market is somehow killing them when it's not doing any such thing.
While it's a seperate issue, I feel the same way about piracy. They make billions of dollars, and do so while operating illegally. I don't think piracy is right or anything, but when they use it to justify jamming DRM and stuff down my throat I call "BS". It's like the bloody Mafia asking for public support because some gang bangers are cuting into their profits and they can't dislodge them on their own. It's crooks against crooks, neither has a moral high ground, I only care because they are trying to bring me, a legitimate consumer into it.
My basic attitude is that the gaming industry needs to put a bloody sock in it in general. If the industry was in trouble and not making billions, then maybe I might have some concern, but right now there is no danger of the industry collapsing or anything like that. It's all about them wanting to make more and more money, and when they are doing it using dubious techniques to begin with, I think they lose the abillity to start yelling "foul".
The reason why the cartel behavior in the entertainment industry exists, is because the goverment has yet to turn their attention towards it. Some of it might have to do with political payoffs, but a lot of it is probably that it isn't big enough to get their attention quite yet. Sure movies, music, video games and related things do make billions of dollars but that isn't as big a deal as the gas/oil industry which is an actual nessecity, nor is anyone currently in the position of creating a monopoly that could challenge the goverment itself like in the case of Microsoft and it's stranglehold on operating systems, or Ted Turner when he was trying to basically become the god-emperor of all media on planet earth.
This time, Shamus has really hit the nail on the head. This is EXACTLY what should be done: it's good for consumers, and it would incur MASSIVE damage to used game sales and maybe even to piracy! Really, are publushers that blind? I know that they are, but it's still unbelieveable that people know how to make millions, yet didn't even think of copying that practice from the movie industry! If games indeed had dynamic price reduction, i'd buy a lot more games.
By the way, as has already been mentioned: part of Steam's success is because of regular sales. Valve know that making a little money is better than making no money at all, probably because THEY'RE NOT RETARDS!
Really, the contrived stupidity of an entire situation and the simplicity of an ideal solution THAT IS ALREADY IN USE in the neighboring industry just makes me cringe. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
By the way, as has already been mentioned: part of Steam's success is because of regular sales. Valve know that making a little money is better than making no money at all, probably because THEY'RE NOT RETARDS!
Really, the contrived stupidity of an entire situation and the simplicity of an ideal solution THAT IS ALREADY IN USE in the neighboring industry just makes me cringe. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
This is the best idea I've ever heard. I am tired of having to wait 2 years for the price of a new game to go below $40 (IF I'M LUCKY). If I don't have it by then, I probably don't care enough to pay that much. Getting $40 for a game is a lot better than not getting $60.
"not worth the hassle to save 10 percent of the purchase price on a $10 item"
if you can wait 3 months after a movie comes to dvd you can amazon a movie (originally $20) for easily <$3. and yes, another $3 shipping brings that to nearly $10, but $4x 10 movies is 40 .../6= another 6 (or more) movies.
or screw it all and netflix from a console or the net. and when it comes to games there's gamefly but i don't know the fees. and, of course, gamestop's freebie 'rental' system is too good to be true ... i'm sure it'll change within a year.
take advantage while you can
if you can wait 3 months after a movie comes to dvd you can amazon a movie (originally $20) for easily <$3. and yes, another $3 shipping brings that to nearly $10, but $4x 10 movies is 40 .../6= another 6 (or more) movies.
or screw it all and netflix from a console or the net. and when it comes to games there's gamefly but i don't know the fees. and, of course, gamestop's freebie 'rental' system is too good to be true ... i'm sure it'll change within a year.
take advantage while you can